Why candidates who voted for the war and now are against it aren't qualified to run for office.
by user Solutions OK, Pubs and Dems alike: I'm not concerned with those who favored the war and still do. I'm not concerned with those who were against the war from the start and still are. The danger lies with those who were in favor of the war and aren't now. Both the public and politicians alike - that's the group of people who have ruined the country. Those are the same people who agreed with Hitler cause it sounded reasonable to them at the beginning in the early 30's. That's the same people who agreed to invade countries and make them part of the Roman Empire, cause that also sounded good at the beginning. That's the same group of people who agreed with the Crusades, which also sounded reasonable at the beginning. It's the majority, unfortunately, and they are taken in by well crafted sentences, mob rule, decisions based on melodramatic and emotional highs and have little or no capacity to separate the wheat from the chaff. the truth from the lies, or to think for themselves. They always live the lives they were raised to live, finding it next to impossible not only to step outside their upbringing, but to even imagine a thought outside their upbringing. They try to find leaders to "believe" instead of just taking a few moments to think for themselves. For the public, the majority will always be like that, but these type of people should never be voted into office. How come the people who voted for the war (both politicians and the public alike) don't have an urge to go to those who were against it from the get go and say to them, "How did you know? I want to know how you knew before it started that this would happen so I can learn to think ahead as well. Tell me how you were able to know before we started it would turn out like this? Teach me." And that's what makes Hillary et al unqualified for office. The inability to make discerning decisions. Either she voted to "go along" which is very dangerous as President or she "fell for the rhetoric", also dangerous as President. Bush is not incapable. Bush does not lack the ability to think outside of common belief. Bush does what he does very on purpose. I don't agree with what he does, but I know he is doing it intentionally. Maybe because Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld and corporate America told him to, but it's still on purpose. Not to be popular or due to naivity. It's all intentional. I don't think that ANYONE who voted in favor of this war and is now against it, should be elected to office ever again. Now THAT would empty out the chambers! I am a nobody. I am an American citizen with no political experience, only a BA in liberal arts (not the greatest grades either) and not all that well read. But, when I heard we were going to war in Iraq, without even knowing about Daddy Bush having written that we shouldn't try to go to Baghdad, my first words were: It will be like Israel only worse. In the beginning, it will be a cake walk to Baghdad, they will let us pass with little or no resistance and then when the big bang has calmed down and we are almost out of there, they will begin to take pot shots at us till we can't stomach it anymore cause they fight differently then we do and we don't know how to do it their way. And they can't win doing it our way, so they won't try. They will do it the same way the American colonists did it when over 50% of them didn't even possess a gun at the beginning of the Revolution, yet, these untrained farmers beat one of the most advanced, heavily equipped armies of the world at that time, the British. And there were many politicians in D.C., although not enough to stop it, who knew this as well. It didn't matter whether there were WMDs or not. That's the whole point. That IS the point ! There were more WMD's during the first Gulf War and Daddy Bush still said, "We can't do it. It won't work." So these slimey presidential candidates that use the WMD lie as an excuse for voting for the war are still unqualified to be President. They don't have the ability to think for themselves and see things beyond what is told to them. Nobody told me anything and I saw the future as plain as day. I'm not Einstein. I looked at other countries in the area that have trained military, good equipment, plenty of practice and can't stop suicide bombings. And I'm not saying anything against the Kurds cause I don't know them all that well. All I know is just because someone is a victim, it doesn't automatically mean they are nice. What happened to 'the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend?" Thing is, even if they DID have WMDs, going in militarily was STILL a very bad idea. And, really think about this. Really hard. These idiots claim that they voted in favor of the war cause they were told Saddam had WMDs (chemicals, gas, etc.) so if that's true, then why did they allow these guys (and girls) to go in without gas masks and special protective clothing for chemical warfare? Why? CAUSE THEY KNEW HE DIDN'T HAVE IT! See, no matter how they try to slice it, they are not qualified to be President. They either lied about why they voted in favor, or they're incompetent. Sorry, but they are all disqualified, with no excuses. Someone who voted in favor of it and still believes it's the right thing is more qualified than those who voted in favor and now are against it. That latter group is the worst. __NOEDITSECTION__ Category: Opinions Category: Opinions by User Solutions Category: March 21, 2007 Category: Opinions From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.